WOOHOO! - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

05/12/2008 07:46:55 AM · #1

Only gone and done it... bought a D300 WOOHOO!

I love it, it's big and heavy compared to the D40, but crikey it can shoot fast. And I traded in my 55-200mm zoom and got the 18-200mm VR instead. I am very impressed with the lens so far.

There are a few more setting to learn but the Nikon menu system is pretty straight forward, and I love have a dial on the front and the back so you can adjust the aperture and the shutter speed at the same time. It's just amazing!

One question though, what RAW format should I use, lossless compressed, or uncompressed? I tried uncompressed the other day and the files are about 20MB, lossless compressed they are about 13MB, but for some strange reason you don't get any extra capacity on the card..?

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

05/12/2008 08:39:48 AM · #2

I believe that it's a lossless compression, so won't cause any problems later. I further believe that the camera calculates (estimates?) the remaining number of shots on the card based upon the largest file size that could occur, so you won't see an increase in the number indicated, but you would certainly see more pics getting onto the card.

Anti-Martyr

Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro

05/12/2008 09:51:37 AM · #3

If you want the best images, shoot Lossless Compressed and 14-bit color. Takes up the most space, but you get so many more colors.

Congratulations. You'll love it; I had to go about 3 weeks with a D200 when my D300 was in at Nikon, and I almost killed myself!

PS: If you buy the battery grip, it gets even faster ;)

Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

05/12/2008 03:30:30 PM · #4

I got the battery grip too as it was on offer, it's ridiculous ha ha! The D300 is certainly not something you can hang round your neck all day and walk around...

Now I have no excuses to get below a 6!

CEJ

Canon EOS-40D

05/12/2008 04:43:26 PM · #5

It isn't the camera, it's the photographer.

Patrick_R

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

05/12/2008 04:54:28 PM · #6

Originally posted by CEJ:

It isn't the camera, it's the photographer.

amen a good photographer can take better pictures with a point and shoot than an idiot with a canon mark III

05/12/2008 06:06:59 PM · #7

Originally posted by CEJ:

It isn't the camera, it's the photographer.

Exactly, but now I have no excuses, I can't blame my tools as it were... I didn't say "it" was automatically going to take good pictures. Hmmmm.... but what if I set it to auto..... ha ha

: )

Message edited by author 2008-05-12 18:08:07.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

05/12/2008 06:32:24 PM · #8

Originally posted by Patrick_R:

Originally posted by CEJ:
It isn't the camera, it's the photographer.

amen a good photographer can take better pictures with a point and shoot than an idiot with a canon mark III

This is true to an extent. However comes with a number of exceptions. If you are able to control the lighting and subject exactly, or are willing to wait days, months, or even years between perfect shots, an expert can use a point and shoot. However the subject is not always an easy subject.

There may be interference with focusing requiring real manual focus, the subject might be moving too fast to capture in the position required without fast continuous shooting, the subject may simply be too high or too far away and require a larger zoom than a P&S could ever hold.

It is like giving a doctor only two tools, he will be able to treat some patients perfectly well using only those two tools, he might not even need them at all. However he might not be able to perform his full duties as a doctor without a full range of tools.

The D300 is such a range of tools. It will not make a bad photographer good, no camera can do that, however it does allow for more choice and control from the photographer allowing them to take photos far beyond what any P&S could ever hope for.

One other thing the big expensive cameras can do is offload some of the mental work required such as focusing and metering allowing the photographer to put their full thought into the subject, not how to take a picture of the subject.

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

05/12/2008 08:09:37 PM · #9

Originally posted by Patrick_R:

Originally posted by CEJ:
It isn't the camera, it's the photographer.

amen a good photographer can take better pictures with a point and shoot than an idiot with a canon mark III

Once upon a time I was an idiot with a point & shoot. Now I'm an idiot with a dSLR. ;-P

CEJ

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

05/12/2008 09:34:47 PM · #10

Once upon a time I was an idiot and nothing has changed and probably never will.

Message edited by author 2008-05-12 21:35:17.

dwterry

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/12/2008 11:52:19 PM · #11

Originally posted by Patrick_R:

Originally posted by CEJ:
It isn't the camera, it's the photographer.

amen a good photographer can take better pictures with a point and shoot than an idiot with a canon mark III

(looks around to see if anyone is looking)

MelonMusketeer

Nikon D7000

Nikon MF 50mm f/1.4

05/13/2008 12:13:30 AM · #12

I was an idiot once, now I am just a luna-click. : )

Anti-Martyr

Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

05/13/2008 12:31:00 AM · #13

I've walked around with my D300 and grip + lens all day, and it wasn't too bad. Of course, I'm an invincible teen, so that may contribute :)

05/17/2008 08:07:29 AM · #14

I currently shoot in lossless compressed 12-bit, should I be shooting in uncompressed 14-bit?

If the compression is lossless then surely there is no reason to shoot uncompressed?

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

05/17/2008 03:20:29 PM · #15

bump... anyone?

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

05/17/2008 03:29:37 PM · #16

Originally posted by rob_smith:

I currently shoot in lossless compressed 12-bit, should I be shooting in uncompressed 14-bit?

If the compression is lossless then surely there is no reason to shoot uncompressed?

Are those the two choices? I'd always prefer a 14-bit data depth over 12-bit. As you surmised there is no quality penalty for lossless compression. There may be a speed penalty though, since the camera has to do more work. Whether there is, and how much, depends on how it is implemented.

05/17/2008 03:40:22 PM · #17

Hehe, that is a very good question. I imagine as marketing goes, there might be several meanings of "lossless". If you cut something out you would not have seen anyway, is it a loss? The lossless compression might remove something from the image but not enough to degrade the image quality. Or some other Nikon voodoo.

Edit: I get beaten again, grrr. It isn't my fault half way through I decided to check if the compression method altered the shooting rate of RAWs. It in fact, does not. Same speed on the three modes.

Message edited by author 2008-05-17 15:41:50.

05/17/2008 03:46:22 PM · #18

I just found out that there is a huge difference between 12 and 14 bit though, 14 bit raw has a continuous speed of 2.5 fps, 12 bit has 7, so three times the shooting speed with 12-bit raws. I also checked each compression mode against that, there was no noticeable difference in shooting rates.

05/17/2008 04:21:44 PM · #19

Originally posted by togtog:

Wow, just tested that too, the continuous shooting is MUCH slower. I like mine fast so I'll have to stick to 12 bit unfortunately.